Moral Nihilism and what it truly means.

[modernnihilst]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_nihilism

This is a general overview of the path of nihilism I follow. Basicaly it boils down to a lack of moral absolutes. Landau, Russ Shafer (2010). The Fundamentals of ethics gives the best example of this when it states "We are not making an effort to describe the way the world is. We are not trying to report on the moral features possessed by various actions, motives, or policies. Instead, we are venting our emotions, commanding others to act in certain ways, or revealing a plan of action. When we condemn torture, for instance, we are expressing our opposition to it, indicating our disgust at it, publicizing our reluctance to perform it, and strongly encouraging others not to go in for it. We can do all of these things without trying to say anything that is true." To simplify for something to be a moral absolute it must be true and capable of standing up to scrutiny, and if something is moral it is inherently based off belief, ergo factually false.

 

[Mike]

So, to follow up with my question in the other thread... (this is from your link)

For example, a moral nihilist would say that killing someone, for whatever reason, is neither inherently right nor inherently wrong. Moral nihilists consider morality to be make-believe, a complex set of rules and recommendations that may give a psychological, social, or economical advantage to its adherents, but is otherwise not in accord with fact or reality.

Would you say that putting a bullet in the head of an innocent child is neither inherently right or inherently wrong? I've gotta get to bed, so I'll pick up on this tomorrow.

 

[modernnihilst]

thats a complex question, if for instance(and this has been done in the south american guerrilla warfare) where in a child will run up to a group of soldiers and latch on to one and detonate an explosive device taking out as many soldiers as possiable, then in that case it would not be wrong in killing that child to save ones own life. If there can be shown to be an exception to something it can not therefore be stated as a absolute. That being said it is NOT something I support in any fashion. However it is neither inherently right or inherently wrong because an exception exists.

 

[kidcanman]

When discussing moral nihilism the question that comes to my mind is "what about intellectual nihilism"?


Does the ideology of intellectual nihilism exist in reality?

The existence of moral nihilism is predicated on some theories that have not been proven.

The most obvious one is the rejection of the existence and or the nature of God.

The question I have for you Modernnihilst is does intellectual nihilism exist?

The real challenge that nihilists face is that they must prove that god does not exist and or there is no way to know him.

 

[modernnihilst]

When discussing moral nihilism the question that comes to my mind is "what about intellectual nihilism"?


Does the ideology of intellectual nihilism exist in reality?

The existence of moral nihilism is predicated on some theories that have not been proven.

The most obvious one is the rejection of the existence and or the nature of God.

The question I have for you Modernnihilst is does intellectual nihilism exist?

The real challenge that nihilists face is that they must prove that god does not exist and or there is no way to know him.

Intellectual Nihilism as in Existential Nihilism taken to extremes? or Radical Nihilism? can it exist? yes does it however is another matter. Nietzsche stated in European Nihilism "that the Christian moral doctrine provides people with intrinsic value, belief in God (which justifies the evil in the world) and a basis for objective knowledge. In this sense, in constructing a world where objective knowledge is possible, Christianity is an antidote against a primal form of nihilism, against the despair of meaninglessness. However, it is exactly the element of truthfulness in Christian doctrine that is its undoing: in its drive towards truth, Christianity eventually finds itself to be a construct, which leads to its own dissolution. It is therefore that Nietzsche states that we have outgrown Christianity "not because we lived too far from it, rather because we lived too close" Does this mean that Christianity is a religion that is no longer needed? If the Exisestential Nihilist viewpoint is valid then yes. If not no. Being what I am I am reluctant to decide as neither viewpoint could stand up to scrutiny(the Exisestential or Radical) I would have to state at this point in time it is uncertain which theory is correct. As to the Nihilist having to prove that God does or does not exist. Would not proof either way remove the need for faith? For if God exists the nihilist viewpoint is invalid, and the need for faith is removed because everyone would know that god does exist and what rules(see commandments) need be followed. If God does not than Christianity would no longer be needed.
I am a bit confused about the statement that Moral Nihilists automatically reject God. Most nihilists that I know are only willing to give a firm "I dunno, never met the guy." on that subject. But again most people I know that are nihilists are of the moral kind(the others are a bit extreme in thier views). I personally neither deny nor accept God's existence, Im kinda infidelish that way.
Moral Nihilism however is more based on the sientific method regarding truth and morals. If an exception exists to the rule a new one is needed for it to remain truth(I know its a gross simplification but it still works). From my earlier post "We are not making an effort to describe the way the world is. We are not trying to report on the moral features possessed by various actions, motives, or policies. Instead, we are venting our emotions, commanding others to act in certain ways, or revealing a plan of action"

 

[kidcanman]

What I mean by intellectual nihilism is similar to, as Nietzsche put it, the idea that objective knowledge does not exist.

I brought this concept up to point out the fact that your belief in nihilism is, like many theist, also based on "faith".

You have no definite knowledge as to the "truth" behind your belief.

And that's why you made statements like, "If the Existential Nihilist viewpoint is valid then yes. If not no.", and "I would have to state at this point in time it is uncertain which theory is correct." , and "Being what I am I am reluctant to decide as neither viewpoint could stand up to scrutiny".

My qualification was deliberate: "the rejection of the existence and or the nature of God." I understood from reading other posts of yours that you don't reject the existence of God.

But in order to believe that morals definitely don't exist you have to reject the existence of god. If your view of god approaches agnosticism, then your view of moral nihilism also approaches agnosticism. Again the reason why I brought up radical nihilism.

Nietzsche's statement was not entirely clear. It is in fact the belief in god that provides a basis for objective knowledge.


I am Muslim. I don't believe in "faith" per say. My belief is predicated upon proof. Scientific proof is not the only type of proof. There is also common sense, common logic, life experience etc. Subjective proof is not inherently false.

What about divine intervention?
You have no choice but to admit that it could exist.

And so at the end of the day you have already agreed with my point: "If god exists the nihilist viewpoint is invalid", and "Would not proof (in the existence of god) either way remove any need for faith?"

You stated that you don't know if god exists and that essentially your belief that he might not exist is only in faith. That means that your belief in nihilism is only faith.

However I would actually describe it as belief and not faith.

 

[Mike]

thats a complex question, if for instance(and this has been done in the south american guerrilla warfare) where in a child will run up to a group of soldiers and latch on to one and detonate an explosive device taking out as many soldiers as possiable, then in that case it would not be wrong in killing that child to save ones own life. If there can be shown to be an exception to something it can not therefore be stated as a absolute. That being said it is NOT something I support in any fashion. However it is neither inherently right or inherently wrong because an exception exists.

I'm either not understanding the text I quoted, I'm not understanding you, or you are not agreeing with it. Here's the text again.

For example, a moral nihilist would say that killing someone, for whatever reason, is neither inherently right nor inherently wrong. Moral nihilists consider morality to be make-believe, a complex set of rules and recommendations that may give a psychological, social, or economical advantage to its adherents, but is otherwise not in accord with fact or reality.

It says, "killing someone, for whatever reason, is neither inherently right nor inherently wrong". From what I can tell, the article is saying that it doesn't matter if the child (in my scenario) poses a danger or not. It's saying nihilists believe killing any child under any circumstance is not right or wrong; that we can deem it wrong ourselves, but it's not inherently wrong.

So I'll ask you again, since the article gives no opt-out for killing. Do you believe there is a universal truth that it is inherently wrong to kill an innocent child? By that I mean a child who poses no one any harm.



Edited to let Mike know I can do this with Tapatalk.

 

[Fedusenko]

Mike, you are asking someone to place morals on something when they don't believe in morals. They have emotions, but that is not the same. They may not want that child to die or get hurt, but has nothing to do with it being right or wrong because they believe that right and wrong does not exist.

Example: I want that candy that baby holds. the next to actions are physically the exact same. I steal that candy. or The baby gives me that candy. In both instances there is a change of ownership of candy. I might be happy and the baby sad or vice versa, but that doesn't matter.

They are saying that stealing is neither right nor wrong because it can't be universally stated. I am interested in what they have to say about specific instances, though.

 

[modernnihilst]

the word that allows me to say that it is neither right or wrong is inherently. Inherently as defined in the dictionary: existing in someone or something as a permanent and inseparable element, quality, or attribute: an inherent distrust of strangers.
Even the law makes exceptions for self defence. And of course the paradoxial situation where in someone breaks into your home armed and intends to kill you, in your home you have a weapon, do you kill that man or do you allow yourself to be killed? In either case you must violate a moral belief. For a nihilist there is no issue. In my case that individual's life is forfet.
And to answer your question Mike a children being murdered/killed is not something i support in any fashion, however it is neither inherently right or wrong. the reason for this is that there is an exception(several in fact) where in I could justify ending a childs life prematurely.

ps. Before i get lots of hate on that one the only 2 instances I would condone a child being killed are in the example previously given and in the case of PAINFUL TERMINAL ILLNESS where the childs life will consist of nothing but pain for however long they may live. There is another situation where in I am torn on child death, if 2 kids are in a fight, it happened once and was in the news where one kid hit another 1 time and the kid that was hit died, sad but not wrong per say.

 

[modernnihilst]

What I mean by intellectual nihilism is similar to, as Nietzsche put it, the idea that objective knowledge does not exist.

I brought this concept up to point out the fact that your belief in nihilism is, like many theist, also based on "faith".

You have no definite knowledge as to the "truth" behind your belief.

And that's why you made statements like, "If the Existential Nihilist viewpoint is valid then yes. If not no.", and "I would have to state at this point in time it is uncertain which theory is correct." , and "Being what I am I am reluctant to decide as neither viewpoint could stand up to scrutiny".

My qualification was deliberate: "the rejection of the existence and or the nature of God." I understood from reading other posts of yours that you don't reject the existence of God.

But in order to believe that morals definitely don't exist you have to reject the existence of god. If your view of god approaches agnosticism, then your view of moral nihilism also approaches agnosticism. Again the reason why I brought up radical nihilism.

Nietzsche's statement was not entirely clear. It is in fact the belief in god that provides a basis for objective knowledge.


I am Muslim. I don't believe in "faith" per say. My belief is predicated upon proof. Scientific proof is not the only type of proof. There is also common sense, common logic, life experience etc. Subjective proof is not inherently false.

What about divine intervention?
You have no choice but to admit that it could exist.

And so at the end of the day you have already agreed with my point: "If god exists the nihilist viewpoint is invalid", and "Would not proof (in the existence of god) either way remove any need for faith?"

You stated that you don't know if god exists and that essentially your belief that he might not exist is only in faith. That means that your belief in nihilism is only faith.

However I would actually describe it as belief and not faith.

Ok you were refering to Nietzsche's definition, by that definition yes you would be right. However at the same time you would also be wrong. and it can be best defined by Nietzsche himself " "knowledge" is always by someone of some thing: it is always bound by perspective, and it is never mere fact". so based off that one could reasonably assert that god does or does not exist, or that there is nothing that is inherently moral or immoral.

To give a (slightly warped I'll admit) example. There are three people one of whom we'll call Mr. H., he offers you cake as much as you want forever, all you have to do is follow some simple rules and you get the cake. Now there is a second man who comes along, we'll call him Mr. C., he offers you as much pie as you want forever again all you have to do is follow some simple rules and you can have the pie. Now then there is a third man, Mr. M., this man is offering ice cream under the same circumstances. lets say for arguments sake you prefer pie to the others so you take pie. Would someone who prefers cake be inherently wrong? btw if you havent figured it out thats a metaphor for the general religous arguments I see on the net. If looked at like that followers of the religons of the world fighting all the time seems kinda silly dont it? they all offer the same thing a nice place to be in the afterlife. Perspective is the difference between right and wrong.

 

[Free]

thats a complex question, if for instance(and this has been done in the south american guerrilla warfare) where in a child will run up to a group of soldiers and latch on to one and detonate an explosive device taking out as many soldiers as possiable, then in that case it would not be wrong in killing that child to save ones own life.

But Mike's question really wasn't complex: " Do you believe there is a universal truth that it is inherently wrong to kill an innocent child? By that I mean a child who poses no one any harm."

If there can be shown to be an exception to something it can not therefore be stated as a absolute. That being said it is NOT something I support in any fashion. However it is neither inherently right or inherently wrong because an exception exists.

Exceptions to the rule do not mean that the rule is neither right nor wrong or that no absolute exists. As to Mike's question, there is no exception, it is either right or it is wrong to kill an innocent child. Any "exception," such as the one you gave, excludes the child from being innocent.


Moral nihilism is not a position that can be lived with any sort of consistency. It will always end up contradicting itself. Morality is absolute, and even those that deny that live as though it is true.

 

[modernnihilst]

But Mike's question really wasn't complex: " Do you believe there is a universal truth that it is inherently wrong to kill an innocent child? By that I mean a child who poses no one any harm."


Exceptions to the rule do not mean that the rule is neither right nor wrong or that no absolute exists. As to Mike's question, there is no exception, it is either right or it is wrong to kill an innocent child. Any "exception," such as the one you gave, excludes the child from being innocent.


Moral nihilism is not a position that can be lived with any sort of consistency. It will always end up contradicting itself. Morality is absolute, and even those that deny that live as though it is true.

It can and is. Morality is can not be absolute. It is based off belief, if i dont share the same beliefs as you or ones similar we would view morality differently, therefore morality is NOT absolute. To (hopefully) end the conversation on if I think child killing is inherently wrong, no i do not. If it does not affect me honestly it matters not to me. Is it sad? Without a doubt, wrong? No.

 

[Free]

It can and is. Morality is can not be absolute. It is based off belief, if i dont share the same beliefs as you or ones similar we would view morality differently, therefore morality is NOT absolute.

On the contrary, a survey of cultures and religions throughout history will likely show that all of them believe murder is wrong. Most everyone will be utterly repulsed at anyone who suggests it is okay to eat babies. Most everyone will be repulsed by news stories of children being molested or Saddam gassing his own people. And they should because it is morally wrong. That most everyone, everywhere believes such things points to the absoluteness of morality. That some may not be effected by such evil does not mean that morality is not absolute.

Differing views or opinions on morality does not mean that morality is absolute. It could very well be the case the one or more opinions, or all of them, are simply wrong. If one witness to an accident says the car was blue and another says the car was red, does that mean that colors don't exist or the accident didn't happen?

What happens with moral nihilism is that one cannot make any moral judgements whatsoever. This is a serious problem. It's a good thing most people believe in morality in some fashion or another and that most live as though it is absolute.

 

[JNathanK]

thats a complex question, if for instance(and this has been done in the south american guerrilla warfare) where in a child will run up to a group of soldiers and latch on to one and detonate an explosive device taking out as many soldiers as possiable, then in that case it would not be wrong in killing that child to save ones own life. If there can be shown to be an exception to something it can not therefore be stated as a absolute. That being said it is NOT something I support in any fashion. However it is neither inherently right or inherently wrong because an exception exists.

You can prove or disprove anything through logical constructs. That's the flaw of nihilism, because it seeks to approach everything from a materialistic outlook. My sense of moral foundation is based in my sense of intuition and feeling, not a logos. You can argue that its all purely some irrational illusion my brain has created through chemical transmitters and receptors, but my feeling an intuition is based in a knowledge of interconnectedness to those around me. I could argue that those who don't have that same feeling of interconnectedness, like say a sociopath, are the ones with the real illusion. They can't see beyond their own egos, for whatever reason, when we are all obviously apart of an interconnected continuum.

The love of Christ to me, isn't just some imaginary thing I've been indoctrinated to believe in from a young age. He is a symbol and manifestation of the highest form of divine love (agape) as described in I Corinthians 13. That love is also a potential that humans can receive into their own hearts, and I believe its all rooted in attaining a knowledge and awareness of the relationship between the self and non-self.

 

[modernnihilst]

On the contrary, a survey of cultures and religions throughout history will likely show that all of them believe murder is wrong. Most everyone will be utterly repulsed at anyone who suggests it is okay to eat babies. Most everyone will be repulsed by news stories of children being molested or Saddam gassing his own people. And they should because it is morally wrong. That most everyone, everywhere believes such things points to the absoluteness of morality. That some may not be effected by such evil does not mean that morality is not absolute.

Differing views or opinions on morality does not mean that morality is absolute. It could very well be the case the one or more opinions, or all of them, are simply wrong. If one witness to an accident says the car was blue and another says the car was red, does that mean that colors don't exist or the accident didn't happen?

What happens with moral nihilism is that one cannot make any moral judgements whatsoever. This is a serious problem. It's a good thing most people believe in morality in some fashion or another and that most live as though it is absolute.

there is an inherent difference between most and all/absolute. If most people today woke up and said picking ones nose and eating it is now acceptable there would still be those that find it disgusting. in this case picking ones nose and eating it(YUCK!!!! btw) could not be said to be an absolute acceptable thing to do.
In terms of moral judjements, you are right there I dont make em. i make my judgements based on the facts and my own personal feelings on the best course of action.

 

[modernnihilst]

You can prove or disprove anything through logical constructs..

EXACTLY. This is of course what ive been trying to say.

That's the flaw of nihilism, because it seeks to approach everything from a materialistic outlook.

Where you see flaws I see benefits. But we'll just agree to disagree, or at least i will

 

[modernnihilst]

On the contrary, a survey of cultures and religions throughout history will likely show that all of them believe murder is wrong. Most everyone will be utterly repulsed at anyone who suggests it is okay to eat babies. Most everyone will be repulsed by news stories of children being molested or Saddam gassing his own people.

I can off the top of my head name 3 cultures in history that do not agree with the statement that murder is wrong. 1) Sparta, when a child was born they were given to a "priest" and that priests job was to judge the "worthyness" of that child(read look for physical deformitys or signs of weakness) if the infant did not pass the judgement. they were left to die. 2) before i mention this one I DO NOT SUPPORT WHAT THEY DID IN ANY FASHION. Nazi's, they had no problem exterminating those who they did not feel fit into thier "master plan". We all know what they did(or at least should). 3) China, the Chineese culture and contenent is a wee bit over crowded and most familys want sons(or one of each) if two female children or a "deformed" child are born to the same family SOMETIMES that second child is allowed to die(not sure if its still done couldnt find any current information). I'm fairly sure there are others but those are just the ones off the top of my head.

 

[kidcanman]

Ok you were refering to Nietzsche's definition, by that definition yes you would be right. However at the same time you would also be wrong. and it can be best defined by Nietzsche himself " "knowledge" is always by someone of some thing: it is always bound by perspective, and it is never mere fact". so based off that one could reasonably assert that god does or does not exist, or that there is nothing that is inherently moral or immoral.

Correction; I "could" be right no matter what.

The only case in which I would definitely be wrong, is if god definitely does not exist. That is the only case in which Nietzsche's definition of knowledge could definitely apply.

 

[modernnihilst]

Correction; I "could" be right no matter what.

The only case in which I would definitely be wrong, is if god definitely does not exist. That is the only case in which Nietzsche's definition of knowledge could definitely apply.

Yup pretty much sums it up best. Untill God appears to the world or proof that God does not exist all we have are semantics.

 

[kidcanman]

If looked at like that followers of the religons of the world fighting all the time seems kinda silly dont it? they all offer the same thing a nice place to be in the afterlife. Perspective is the difference between right and wrong.

If you thoroughly investigated the situation and came to this conclusion then your argument would carry weight. But I'm pretty certain that you probable have not read all of the major religions books from cover to cover.

And so your argument is light.